Hewitt v. Chugach Government Services, Inc.
Civil Action No. 2016-2192
| D.D.C. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- Hewitt was an at-will Facility Maintenance Technician employed by Chugach at the Potomac Job Corps Center from March 2010 until his termination in summer 2016.
- Chugach alleged Hewitt was photographed sleeping on the job on June 22, 2016; Hewitt denied sleeping and alleges the company later admitted no photo existed.
- Hewitt filed a wrongful-termination complaint in D.C. Superior Court asserting his discharge violated D.C. public policy (citing D.C. Code § 51-110) and that the employer violated its personnel manual procedures; Chugach removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Chugach moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the Court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for the motion.
- Hewitt’s principal theory was that D.C. Code § 51-110(b)(2) (unemployment-benefits statute) establishes a public-policy limitation on at-will termination and that his manual-based reliance created an enforceable protection.
- The Court found neither the statute nor the employer’s internal policies created the required public policy exception to at-will employment and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.C. Code § 51-110 creates a public-policy exception to at-will employment | § 51-110 requires discharge only for gross misconduct, so it establishes an official public policy protecting employees | The statute governs eligibility for unemployment benefits, not the right to continued employment; it does not displace at-will doctrine | Court: statute does not articulate a public-policy exception; claim cannot proceed |
| Whether reliance on employer personnel manual creates a wrongful-termination claim | Hewitt reasonably relied on manual’s termination causes and procedures and they were not followed | Violation of an employer’s internal policies does not create a public-policy exception to at-will discharge | Court: internal-policy breach does not support public-policy wrongful-termination claim |
| Pleading sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) | Complaint alleges facts (termination, denial of misconduct, no photo) sufficient to state a claim | Facts do not establish a legally cognizable public-policy violation or other exception to at-will employment | Court: allegations, even if accepted, fail to show a plausible legal basis for relief |
| Whether any other recognized exception applies | Impliedly argues for expansion or recognition of a public-policy exception grounded in statute/regulation | District of Columbia precedent requires clear public policy anchored in Constitution, statute, or regulation closely fit to conduct | Court: no basis to create or extend public-policy exception here |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., Inc., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991) (recognizes narrow public-policy exception where employee refuses to violate law)
- Carl v. Children’s Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997) (requires public-policy exception be anchored in Constitution or statute/regulation and closely fit the conduct)
- Robinson v. Securitas Servs., Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2011) (discusses narrowness of public-policy exception in D.C. law)
- Jones v. Dist. of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth., 963 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2013) (employer’s internal policy violations do not establish public-policy wrongful-termination claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual content allowing reasonable inference of defendant’s liability)